Opinion Kamala Harris: $25,000 down Payment Assistance

Do you think these “opportunity economy” policies will benefit the average American?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Go fuck yourself

  • Bro you don’t even go here, stick to football


Results are only viewable after voting.
You don’t see a difference in building 3 million homes across America, vs trying to make 3 million in 10 brand new cities with no infrastructure in place or businesses or jobs?

Trumps “plan” is a fantasy a little kid would come up with. What if we just made a new city out of nothing where people could live? Wouldn’t that be great dad?

Yeah sport. Great idea.
Its dumb because we already have tons of cities that have relatively abundant, cheap housing but the reason no one lives in those places is because they lack the opportunities of the big cities. I remember once for the sake of curiosity I looked up what the same amount of money could get you in West Virginia and NYC and for ~$125,000 you could get either a 1/1 600sqft condo in NYC or a 4/3 2300sqft SFH on something like ~1 acre of land in West Virginia.
 
300k x 10 is 3 million. Isn’t that basically the same as what Kamala is saying? What is the difference?

What is the difference where etruno
Magically builds these cities, where as Kamala builds 3 million homes?

Can you articulate any difference?
No, it's not the same thing. KH is using incentives to encourage builders to build new homes. That puts the market into play because builders will build where there's potential demand.

Trump wanted to put brand new cities on federal land. Is there demand there? Will there be jobs? Is there infrastructure? Would he force companies to relocate their jobs to those locations?

They are not comparable plans.
 
You don’t see a difference in building 3 million homes across America, vs trying to make 3 million in 10 brand new cities with no infrastructure in place or businesses or jobs?

Trumps “plan” is a fantasy a little kid would come up with. What if we just made a new city out of nothing where people could live? Wouldn’t that be great dad?

Yeah sport. Great idea.

You don’t see the need for building infrastructure and urban development when you are trying to build 3 million new homes?

So you legit think it’s all about just building homes and there is no need to build support systems for those homes?

Seems like you’re the one living in fantasy land. Oh, let’s just plop all these houses here and there, and hope there are teachers and doctors there to service them
 
@HockeyBjj found a better clip, where she does clarify 3 million affordable homes or rentals.



However, this goes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread, that that doesn’t even cover the amount of migrants coming over that would be codified into law with the border bill she wants to push through which allows 5k+ migrants a day.

I mean, Trump has had a similar platform idea for over a year, but much more detailed, I wonder if Kamala’s handler got their idea from him and copied it lol. She even wants to use federal land to get around red tape just as Trump says a year and a half ago. Glad to hear you like the idea, I just think an actually buisness many developer would handle this better than Kamala. Trump 2024

Also, @Mike just curious to your thoughts on this message from Trump , given our previous discussion. Also compare it to Kamala’s and see who you would trust on an issue like this


I won't lie I hate Trump but that's probably the best singular clip I've seen of him proposing ideas. I didn't hate it and agreed with the overall premise and logic, without knowing further details.

It was fat more convincing than the Harris clip for me personally.
 
I won't lie I hate Trump but that's probably the best singular clip I've seen of him proposing ideas. I didn't hate it and agreed with the overall premise and logic, without knowing further details.

It was fat more convincing than the Harris clip for me personally.

Appreciate your response. Then look at what I am arguing with the moderators. Lol, what freaks.

It is literally common sense vs whatever deflection these dorks need for their cognitive dissonance
 
I believe being homeless also causes mental illness.

Anyway, to the thread, I tend to agree, it's a band aid. I don't know what the solution is and frankly I'm not studied enough to, intuitively however, building affordable homes/increasing supply makes sense and government housing makes sense. Certain regulations may also help with, I know with rentals some of the bigger firms are doing forms of price fixing with AI. Edit: I also like the idea of streamlining construction with "box", put together type homes to bring costs down.

I think one of those Scandinavian countries built government housing for middle class people, and shit, if it works, it works. I'd be game if the data shows it to be a prudent measure. We can't complain about homelessness given the state of our healthcare system and how insanely expensive housing and basic goods are.
The public housing program you're thinking of is likely the one in Vienna where a significant portion of all housing stock is public housing which helps keep overall prices, even private housing, low. But there's a broad political consensus in favor of that which we lack here in the US.

Another problem that is underappreciated is that we have a massive corpus of laws that collectively make it very hard to do large infrastructure projects. For example developers have to do extensive environmental impact surveys which sounds good in theory but in practice the environmental concerns range from legitimate concerns like making sure there's enough permeable area to avoid flooding to absurd stuff like how the building might ruin the view for locals.

That kind of law is used by local NIMBYs to stall and kill developments.
 
You don’t see the need for building infrastructure and urban development when you are trying to build 3 million new homes?
Significantly less when it’s expanding 3 homes instead of 2 anywhere building is happening, as opposed to having to start from the ground up on such a large scale

Dude you know building 10 brand new cities is a stupid thing but Trump said it so you’re trying to find a way to defend it
 
Significantly less when it’s expanding 3 homes instead of 2 anywhere building is happening, as opposed to having to start from the ground up on such a large scale

Dude you know building 10 brand new cities is a stupid thing but Trump said it so you’re trying to find a way to defend it

Building large, planned communities, is a very common thing. Many large enough to be considered cities in themselves

Places like Hialeah gardens, which is quickly housing tens of thousands of people.


This is simple fact, sorry if you’re dumb
 
Last edited:
Significantly less when it’s expanding 3 homes instead of 2 anywhere building is happening, as opposed to having to start from the ground up on such a large scale

Dude you know building 10 brand new cities is a stupid thing but Trump said it so you’re trying to find a way to defend it
Why is it stupid?
 
Personally I think setting a target like that when the relevant laws are largely at the local level is risky but one hopes it plays well with independent voters.
I think it sends a clear message that the issue is a top priority. That's important because if you're trying to distinguish candidates in the same party, priorities and general ability to make things happen are the two key things (ideology gets talked about a lot in primaries, and it's not significant, IMO).
 
Jesus wept just look at the other thread I'm in. It's like trying to talk to an alien species

Lmao. Literally arguing that there arent such things as planned communities. Like what the fuck?

James rouse, Edward norton’s grand father, who is credited as building the first modern, planned community that would shape suburb America, would slap these idiots in the face.

Take a fucking history, economics, and civics class class, you bums!
 
I think it sends a clear message that the issue is a top priority. That's important because if you're trying to distinguish candidates in the same party, priorities and general ability to make things happen are the two key things (ideology gets talked about a lot in primaries, and it's not significant, IMO).
Its not wrong to set a target and work hard to achieve it but my issue is that it opens her up to partisan attacks about how she didn't achieve her stated goal because she didn't want to or was lying or something like that.

Then again partisan hacks will hack and you can't let that weigh on your mind too much.
 
Why is it stupid?
If you’re wanting to increasing housing supply in the country to lower housing costs, why would you limit yourself to only building in 10 areas and then trying to create startup companies so people can have jobs, instead of building wherever jobseekers were already going but not finding enough housing creating bidding wars on the limited units that were available?
 
Interesting. Thanks for the video. I definitely need to research this more. Need to validate these claims, and if true, find out how widespread and the real timeline of this "policy".
It's pretty well documented. Racial covenants in deeds were pretty common until segregation was finally ruled unconstitutional.

While you're looking into this, research "redlining" and how the National Highway System was used to segregate cities. It shouldn't surprise anyone though. Segregation was legal up into the mid-1950s. It should surprise anyone that laws were written with the express intention to segregate since it wasn't unlawful to do.

The problem in the modern era is that because we have never allowed it, it's hard to fathom just how widespread and impactful it was on the prior generations.
 
Why is it stupid?
<RIP>
Its dumb because we already have tons of cities that have relatively abundant, cheap housing but the reason no one lives in those places is because they lack the opportunities of the big cities. I remember once for the sake of curiosity I looked up what the same amount of money could get you in West Virginia and NYC and for ~$125,000 you could get either a 1/1 600sqft condo in NYC or a 4/3 2300sqft SFH on something like ~1 acre of land in West Virginia.
 
Its not wrong to set a target and work hard to achieve it but my issue is that it opens her up to partisan attacks about how she didn't achieve her stated goal because she didn't want to or was lying or something like that.

Then again partisan hacks will hack and you can't let that weigh on your mind too much.
Could be partly a calculation that YIMBYs have the wind at their backs. There has been a lot of big new legislation in CA that hasn't had time to really drive new construction yet. Combined with federal support, I can see that getting a long way toward the goal. Plus, if high housing costs lead to migration, it's probably to places with less-restrictive policies, which, again will have federal support.
 
@Mike are they trying to argue that having a planned development with pre plan needs for jobs, hire appropriately, etc, doesn’t help prop up a developing community?

I don’t understand if these people think you can just building houses with no support or what?

Or do you not need to build infrastructure to sustain these people? I really don’t get their argument against what Trump said a year and a half ago, that Kamala is basicslly trying to copy, but with way less detail
 
@Mike As you can see by all the #blueAnon retard mods, they only think about building housing, and not the services and support needed for the communities.

it is a pretty binary thing to see once you notice it, that these people are just idiots. Sorry you have been red pilled, but we need to fight back
 
Back
Top